User Reviews

I sure enjoyed this campy, terrible new version of Bugliosi's flawed, fascinating version of the Manson murders. I suppose the production's tragic flaw is that Warner Bros. was determined to exploit Jeremy Davies' uncanny Charles Manson impersonation, but unwilling to devote much time to it. It's difficult to say who could respect this version of the horrifying events which brought an end to hippiedom. Squeezed unhappily into a little over two hours, those familiar with the case will sneer at the ruthless editing and condensation of the facts and events surrounding the murders. Incredibly, the film comes to an abrupt halt before the trial, hastily summed up in text just before the final credits, even begins! Those only passingly familiar, or unfamiliar, with Manson will simply be left out in the cold by the completely incoherent, fragmented narrative. Luckily, it's loaded with camp value, and there are occasional glimmers of how great this version could have been if they had only pumped up the silliness a few more notches. On the DVD, for instance, there is an outtake of a scene where Susan Atkins breaks into a torrid go-go dance in prison, and you wish she would burst into song, too, so that the whole production would go where it obviously wants to go. Another laughable aspect is the consistent undermining of the various actresses' performances by their ludicrous wigs. Unfortunately, this production doesn't live up to the inherent promise of the source material, either as true crime, or as bad-taste comedy, so I can't give it four stars. Nevertheless, it's wrong-headed enough to be fun, even if all I could think while watching it was how much better it could have been if John Waters had directed it.

John Gray is the writer-director of this new visual version of Vincent Bugliosi's book. This is the grisly story of psychotic Charles Manson(Jeremy Davies)and his "family" and the gut wrenching Tate-LaBianca murders of 1969. These murders were of course intended to jump start Manson's "Helter Skelter" process of causing a race war in which the 5-foot-2 maniac would then tell "the black man" how to rule the world. As you remember this grand plan of Charlie's came to him via the Beatles' White Album.

The original miniseries in 1974 focused on the court trial. This version spends more time trying to figure out why so many people got wrapped up in following Manson. Davies' portrayal of Manson is pale in comparison to that of Steve Railsback in the original. Railsback's portrayal of the wild-eyed lunatic has followed him ever since. After that being said Bruno Kirby's role as District Attorney Bugliosi also stands in the shadow of George DiCenzo's Bugliosi.

Neither version of this manipulative slaughter compares with Bugliosi's best-selling book that documents the cultish antics and courtroom sideshows of Manson and his followers. This is the scariest book I have ever read and I love reading Stephen King. But after reading "Helter Skelter" I have never slept without a light being on in the house. The horrid violence is primarily alluded to. I can just imagine the treatment given the murders in a major motion picture project.

I'd thought that this was actually going to be a director's cut of the original movie - but then I saw that it was a new take and was very interested to see how they did.

The guy who played Manson I think was a bit over the top and trying too hard to be eccentric. All the women in the movie pretty much were gorgeous, which was not the case with the original women. Clea Duvall was good, as were the ones playing Atkins and Krenwenkel. Kudos also to the woman playing Rosemary LaBianca, although the parts for the victims were of course not long enough or complicated enough for the actors/actresses to expand.

Facts-wise it was very interesting because they pulled a great deal, especially with the dialogue, directly from quotes attributed to the real people in Bugliosi's book. But then just when I was about to commend them for being that meticulous, they pull out absurdity such as Sharon asking Atkins to cut out the baby, and other real embellishments. I think the real story is horrifying enough. There was no need to try and make things more "bankable" or to try to ratchet up the sadness by making stuff up.

I wasn't looking directly at the screen when Bugliosi made his first appearance. You could NOT have told me he was not being played by Joe Pesci until I looked up to see. He sounds exactly like Pesci - it was hilarious in spite of the subject matter.

The graphic scenes were well done. They kept on graying out the screen not unlike movies such as Sin City when things got especially graphic - at least partly for effect.

Overall not a bad movie. It got most of it right, but left out a lot and embellished a lot. It was far more like a "TV movie" than the original was and overall I'd say if you saw the original you can absolutely skip this one. In fact I'll be watching the original again as soon as this is over - it's still on as I write this.

Of all the murder trials in American history, only the Charles Manson case continues to hold fascination thirty-five years after it took place. The original "Helter Skelter" film aired on CBS in 1976, and focused mainly on the trial of Manson and his zombie teen girls. It was an excellent TV movie, but we never really got a sense of what life with Manson and his young followers was like. This film takes a different approach by focusing on Manson himself, the young people whose lives were ruined by him, and by depicting the actual murders themselves, which were quite intense for a television film. Jeremy Davies ("Spanking the Monkey," "Saving Private Ryan") was deeply scary as Manson. Clea Duvall did a fabulous job as Linda Kasabian, the "family" member who witnessed the murders but did not participate. After the murders, we get the sense that Kasabian is really torn up inside and knows that what was happening was very wrong, while other family members laughed and cheered as they watched news reports of the savage killings on television. Another excellent performance was by Whitney Dylan as Sharon Tate, the pregnant actress who was violently butchered by Manson's murderous teen followers. The scene in which she is on the floor dying and asks the killers to please try and save her baby was chilling and almost tear-inducing. We also get an excellent feel of the turbulent atmosphere of the time, 1969, and how the Manson murders brought "the decade of love" to a thundering halt. What makes this so sad and scary is that this actually happened. The fact that all-American teens from respectable families fell prey to a maniacal con man and are now spending their lives in prison is a frightening reminder of how young people can so easily be led astray by false prophets who promise the world and eventually can lead you into darkness and tragedy, whether it is 1969 or 2004. This film makes you want to hug and talk to your kids about the evil, dangerous alure of cults and false religions. All of the kids in the Manson family were runaways, and Charlie told them exactly what they wanted to hear and soon had them clinging to his every deceptive word. Manson continues to have a following among young people, thirty-five years after these awful crimes, and that's what is really disturbing. Watch the original 1976 film for an exhaustive dramatization of the trial itself, and see this remake for details of the events leading up to the trial. Way above average for television.

A pregnant Linda Kasabian (Clea DuVall) arrives at George Spahn's old western movie set ranch with her daughter Tanya. The group is led by the charismatic Charles Manson (Jeremy Davies). Manson is obsessed making his song with producer Terry Melcher and Beachboys' Dennis Wilson. Linda steals $5000 from her husband's friend for Manson. The Manson family continues their crime spree. Manson goes looking for Terry Melcher but is received coolly by the new leasee Roman Polanski's wife Sharon Tate's friend. Melcher is giving Manson the cold shoulder. Manson tells the family of an impending race war Helter Skelter. Linda is the driver as Manson directs members of the family to massacre Sharon Tate and her friends.

Jeremy Davies has always been great playing crazy. It's odd to say but he may be playing Manson as too crazy. Some of the early outbursts feel a little over the top. I buy his crazy rants when he's in prison. No matter what, he is able to command the screen. Clea DuVall is suppose to be the lead. She gets a bit overshadowed. The one thing I do like a lot is that it lays out the reason why Manson kills Sharon Tate. The story flows well which is a difficult task for such a messy real story.

I was looking forward to the remake of the original film like thousands of other people. I found that even though the cast did a great job in recreating the individual personalities, the story lacked depth. I could not get a handle of what we were trying to zero in on in the remake that should different from the first film. The remake did not show how mesmerizing Charlie was to everyone. Steve Railsback did a haunting performance in 1976 that put chills up and down your spine. He "was" Charles Manson.

I was however glad that this film did not focus on the brutality of the murders (out of respect for the victim's families). I felt like the film did not spend enough quality time on the family and the trial. Obviously if you want to make a good story better, you need more time than just three hours. The film seemed to skim over too many important events. Manson had complete power and domination over the family which moved as one large mind. This film fell short of making a statement and short of a good film. I felt cheated.

Jeremy Davies did an amazing job playing Charlie Manson in this remake of the early 70's version by the same title. He was much more believable than Steve Railsback in the same role. I was quite surprised by both the brutality of the remake (considering it played on national TV) and by the fact they felt it necessary to remake this particular movie after only 30 years. I went into this kind of dreading it, since I really did like the original alot. This was well worth the watch, if for no other reason than to see Davies play Charles Manson. Truly a great performance, one that SHOULD net him much critical acclaim. I wish it had been made for the big screen. The only major issue I had with this was I felt they should have dealt a bit more with the trial towards the end, and the fact finding mission that Bugliosi went on was quite rushed. The original was still better, but check it out when it hits DVD.

If you are really interested enough in the whole Manson affair to

devote 7 hours to it, it would probably be best to see this together

with the 1976 original, because the two fascinatingly complement

each other like yin and yang, or two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Moreover, in spite of the chronology of their release, it would

probably be better to see the 2004 version first, then the 1976

version. The 1976 version begins with the murders already having

occured, whereas the 2004 version focuses mainly on the events

leading up to the murders, and hardly at all on the legal aspects. It

could be summed up: 1976 version, mostly detective and legal

work, 2004 version, mostly a psychological study.

The 2004 version succeeds quite well in showing how Manson

had the power that he did. Nothing that Manson says makes

much sense; he exhibits what shrinks call tangentiality, i.e., the

inability to focus on a point. While this leads most people to avoid

Manson in the outside world, in the cloistered environment of

Manson's commune, it forces the listener to listen all the more

closely. In Jeremy Davies' riveting performance, Manson seems

almost oracular; the very obscurity of what he was saying can

make him seem, to the young naifs with whom he surrounded

himself, profound. It is easy to see how they found him hypnotic.

Davies makes Manson seem scarier than ever.

I sat down to watch the 2004 movie "Helter Skelter" for the third time now here in 2021. And yeah, the movie is as watchable and entertaining today as it was back in 2004 when it was initially released.

I am sure that most people are at least vaguely familiar with the story of Charles Manson and his cult following that became known as the Manson Family. If not, then you have been missing out on one of the most gruesome of murder stories in American history. And also missing out on getting to know one of the most unique and oddly charismatic murderers in American history.

"Helter Skelter" tells the story of the murders that the Manson Family commits, the way the cult was living and how Charles Manson groomed and goaded his followers into doing his every bidding.

Now, what makes "Helter Skelter" such a great movie is the performance of Jeremy Davies in the role of Charles Manson. Sure, I find Charles Manson interesting in the way that he was able to persuade people effortlessly into doing what he told them, but of course I don't condone the atrocious acts of murder or anything. But Jeremy Davies definitely nailed the performance right on the head and delivered a very believable performance of Charles Manson. And having seen many interviews with Charles Manson, there are so many mannerisms and ways of talking that Jeremy Davies got down to perfection.

"Helter Skelter" might not be a movie that falls into everyone's taste, given the gruesome contents and the fact that it is portraying actual events. But it is definitely a movie that deserves to be seen, lest we forget about the cruelty of the past.

My rating of "Helter Skelter" lands on a well-deserved seven out of ten stars.

Having long nurtured a fascination with the Manson Family murder spree, when I heard CBS was airing a new film version of 'Helter Skelter,' co-produced by Vincent Bugliosi and starring the gifted Jeremy Davies as Manson, I couldn't resist tuning in. Boy, was I disappointed.

Davies is a superb actor, but, despite his previously demonstrated ability to play twisted, mentally unstable characters ('Solaris,' 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Ravenous'), his Manson is sort of silly and not particularly persuasive. The casting in general is fairly abysmal--especially Bruno Kirby as Bugliosi, who was at least 15 years younger than Kirby when he tried the case and at least 30 pounds lighter--though there are some small exceptions (Clea Duvall is persuasively haunting as Linda Kasabian, the key witness against the defense). In general, the whole project just seems cheap and crass: the clothes, makeup, and especially the hair on the Manson family look perversely fake and costume-ish, the story offers absolutely no new insights or perspectives on the case, and, worst of all, the direction perpetuates the fetishization of Manson that has contributed to his continued popularity among confused young people who see him as something more than a screwed-up con artist who went nuts because he couldn't get anybody to help him make a record.

Why would Bugliosi sign on for this project, given that he has continued to lament Manson's continuing appeal and expressed remorse for his part in helping to enlarge Manson's myth? He couldn't possibly need the money--'Helter Skelter' is the best-selling true crime book of all time, and all of Bugliosi's subsequent literary efforts have also sold well. Initially I had thought that the film would shed light on how Manson became who he was--his history of incarceration and institutionalization, his horrific childhood, the influence of Scientology and the 'Church of the Process' on his new-agey philosophy, which he later wielded to woo his acolytes into worshiping him to the point that they lost their independent will and would be willing to murder on his order--but instead, we get a retread of facts that will be familiar to anyone who has paid the slightest attention to this case in the past.

There was an opportunity here to add to the story, and to at least make a stab at unpacking the various forces which led up to Manson's bizarre, apocalyptic vision. Perhaps the most overlooked detail of Manson's history is that he is a product of the failures of society, particularly in relation to our child welfare and penal systems. The son of a 'bad girl' who abandoned him to the state, Manson suffered horrific physical and sexual abuse at the hands of older inmates before he reached his teens. By the time he showed up in the Haight in '67, he'd spent over half of his life in prison, and had even begged not to be released, acknowledging himself that he'd been 'institutionalized'--that he'd spent so much of his life in prison culture that he was neither willing nor able to make the transition back into society. Worst of all, Manson would have been the first person to tell anyone that he was far from rehabilitated when he was let loose on the world for the last time.

There's no forgiving Charles Manson for his crimes, nor is there really any way of knowing if his hold over his followers was due to anything more than a shrewd con-man's instincts for exploiting vulnerable marks. But it could be argued that, had he been treated more humanely as a child, he might not have evolved into the man he became.

But this film overlooks the possibility of adding something constructive to this sensational story and chooses instead to roll around in the same old dirt. It's awfully hypocritical of Bugliosi to facilitate this garbage, especially given that the product suggests that his only motives were to make a quick buck and maybe sell a few more books. It's also disrespectful to the families of the victims and the other, secondary victims of Manson--Charles Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkle--who were seduced into becoming murderers and, thanks to the continuing public fascination with Manson, will likely never see the outside of a prison, while far more sinister and dangerous killers are regularly paroled after serving half as much time as Manson's unlucky followers.

Doubtless this will be compared with the 1970s TV movie for most of the feedback on it. Having seen both, the main thoughts that come to mind are that in this version there is more emphasis and clarity on the motives and goals of Manson, as well as what life in the "Family" entailed. A lot of the story is shown through the eyes of Linda Kasabian.

But what really stands out is that unlike in this remake, in the 70's movie the writers had an extremely irritating penchant for 2 characters to have a conversation in a scene, and then one character suddenly starts talking to the camera like a narrator. Thankfully that is gone, and instead of 2 deadpan detectives talking about the crimes that happened, in this version they show what happened.

As anyone who has seen newsreels of the real Manson will attest, the acting of Jeremy Davies as Manson is excellent, even eerily hair raising in some scenes. It would be clear to anyone giving this a fair viewing that Davies has watched a lot of footage of Manson's talking style and mannerisms, and has done his homework quite well.

One drawback in this version is the sudden use of film negatives for 1 or 2 second shots, to try and make the violence look more dramatic, but these efforts usually just marred the scene.

Overall, well worth watching if you haven't seen it, or would like a fresh take on the Tate-LaBianca murders. Certainly better than most of the shallow junk on the tube these days.

I think they should have shown more of how the victims were killed, what they went through. People should know how the Manson Family were pure evil. I hear some people look up to Mr. Manson, What stupid person would do that. To bad they did not put him to death, but I think the movie was good, I remember watching the first movie when I was 10 years old, and it seemed more intense, but I was young. I think the guy who played Mr. Manson did the job real well, very crazy acting, ha. Good Movie Would not buy. Should have shown more of the details on how they were killed.

After watching the "remake" of Helter Skelter last night, I can't wait to pop in the far superior 1976 television version tonight. Bruno Kirby was not believable as Bugliosi, nor was Jeremy Davies as Manson, whereas their respective 1976 counterparts, George DiCenzo and Steve Railsback, nailed these difficult parts dead-on, virtually defining their real-life counterparts in the process.

This newer version actually shows the murders, whereas the original did not - whether this is an improvement or not is a matter of preference. The new version also spends some time developing the characters of the murder victims, another aspect lacking in the original.

The new cast tries hard, but no dice. The superlative performances in the original make this remake pale in comparison. By the way, the chick who played Susan Atkins in the original turned in one of the most chilling television performances ever - whatever happened to her and why have I never seen her in anything else? But I digress...

This new version struck me as though it had been slapped together rather quickly. Attempting to cram a complex piece of history into 3 hours (with commercials) does not work. I kept thinking I was watching Part I, and all of a sudden a bogus "American Graffiti" type written conclusion appears on the screen. The new version barely touched the trial, whereas the trial scenes accounted for a good chunk of the chills in the original.

Helter Skelter did not need to be remade unless someone was going to do it right. Where have you gone, Steve Railsback?

Although I liked this remake of the '76 version, the original still surpassed it by miles. Jeremy Davies gave a very good performance as Manson, yet didn't send chills down my spine like Steve Railsback did in the original. Although I understand that the focus of this remake was more on Manson and the family and less on the investigation and trial, I felt some key details were, maybe purposely, left out. One that really bothered me was the fact that on both nights, the killers wore dark clothing and brought changes of clothing with them, though in this version they wore whatever they happened to have on at the ranch. Tossing the bloody clothing and weapons over an embankment, they had discarded what eventually became some of the first physical pieces of evidence found linking them directly to the crimes, other than actual prints found at the crime scene. For a film that supposedly paid such close attention to detail, this was a big one to omit. All in all, worth seeing. Do see the original, though, and I think you'll agree that Steve Railsback gave an almost effortless performance as Manson, seeming to be looking at you right through your TV screen.

It is with mixed emotions that I give this outstanding documentary such a high rating, because it doesn't exactly know where the line between glorification of a murderous madman and objective re-telling of a truly horrible tale is (and often crosses it), but the movie is so effective at telling the tale of Charles Manson and his followers that it deserves to be seen. Before I go on, it should also be noted that the movie takes a great many creative liberties with its source material, which is perfectly fine with me. What I don't like is when movies are marketed as based on true events or inspired by true events or something and then take some story and do whatever they want with it. This movie is so honest that it starts with nearly a solid minute of full-screen titles explaining that the story has been fictionalized, that certain characters and events have been dramatized for effect.

That being said, it clearly is not a history lesson of what Manson did, which I almost think that it should have been because of the horrific nature of his crimes (if I can be excused a gag-inducing legal-thriller cliché). The one problem that I have with the movie is that, since so much was dramatized, it was made almost as a fictional thriller rather than a documentary about the Manson family. I saw a documentary about the standoff in Waco that went into great detail about the ATF's involvement (and endless screwups) that resulted in the deaths of so many people, and I think something similar would have been the best way to approach this movie.

The murder scenes in this movie are extremely difficult to watch because you know they really happened. If nothing else, great attention was paid to making sure that the murders were as close to real life as possible. Many of the victims were even in the same position and locations in and around their houses as they really were when they were found. And this is what made me dislike the level of glorification in the movie. Charles Manson is so deeply insane and the murders committed by his followers, no matter how brainwashed they were, were so heinous and so disgusting that it made me wish they had thrown him in prison and barred all reporters from talking to him or anyone who knew anything about him.

His punishment should have been disappearance.

On the other hand, I guess I have to admit that I am fascinated by stories like his, which is why I watch documentaries about the standoff at Waco and movies about Ed Gein or John Wayne Gacy. But I like to think that I look at them almost like extended news clips (despite being fictionalized to whatever extent, in this case), and that I can watch something like this and maintain a level of disgust at what really happened. I see a line, for example, between being impressed with a fictional murderer like Hannibal Lecter and a non-fictional murderer (whether he killed anyone with his own hands or not) like Charles Manson. It made me think twice about what I should really think of the fact that I own 22 Marilyn Manson CDs (see my summary line).

Another thing that I found interesting was that all of this took place in Topanga Canyon, near where I live. In fact, after I finish writing this review I am going on the same bike ride that I do two or three times a week. I go west on Venice Blvd. to Sepulveda, then head north over the Sepulveda pass to Ventura Blvd. I go left on Ventura, through Woodland Hills to Topanga Canyon road, then I follow that all the way to the coast, which takes me directly through the middle of the town where the Manson family lived. I've been through there probably a hundred times and I never knew that was where this all happened. Scary.

Jeremy Davies gives a spectacular performance in the movie, and I like that most of it focuses on him and his followers and how he communicated with them to get them to believe that he was their personal savior when in reality he was the exact opposite, and relatively little time is spent showing the murders (which is good because if it was the other way around the movie would have been literally unwatchable). This case is a textbook study for psychologists about the impressionable young minds of the lost young.

Another element that the movie is not very concerned with is the actual trial itself, although I see no problem with this because it is not a courtroom drama, it is a TV thriller about a murderous cult leader. The movie is already over two hours long, we don't need another hour showing the convictions of a lot of people that we already know were convicted. The movie is more concerned with what events led up to their arrest and prosecution, and in that sense it does very well. Dramatized for effect, but the heart of the meaning of it all is still there.

Good narrative movie that gives important information for those who are interested in the Manson's clan modus operandi and the infamous Sharon Tate murder. The problem is that this movie focuses too much on the informative field but forgets about the visuals.

There aren't interesting moments for a movie that has a Horrot label. The movie is very toned down for such a brutal concept and plot. The main problem with this movie that I understand it's very low budget is that it lacks of quality production values.

If you watch this once, you will quickly forget about it because it does not have much to offer. The information is accurate and very well displayed but as a movie, it fails on every aspect.

This is a must see movie. It really consist of focusing on Manson himself and who he was then of the original one. It is very detailed and I myself know a great deal about Charlie and the family and I must say every detail is absolutely correct with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 very small unneeded things you would need to know. But believe me the point is made very well. Grey did an excellent job directing and I just loved the negative visual effects he threw in there to give it a one of a kind horror/thriller look to the film. Also it's great to get the DVD if you can because you will want to check out the special features and Jermeny Davies preparation for this film and his exact on the money portrayal of Manson.

Where do I begin? The most bizarre story in the annals of American murder history and Hollywood just can't tell the facts; it has to "spin" the story. Historical accuracy and realistic casting were left in a ditch along the side of the road. Jeremy Davies was horrible as Manson. Couldn't the producers have found an actor closer to the actual height of Manson to play the role? He talks so softly and waves his arms so much, that I thought I was watching a mute orchestra conductor. Linda Kasabian is played as a sympathetic lost sole, who hooks up with the wrong crowd. Yet, in real life it took a nationally announced warrant for her arrest before she turned herself into the police. Over 3 months after she and her baby had left the family! If she was so overcome with remorse couldn't she had just turned herself into police months earlier? Tex Watson, who either killed or helped kill all seven of the victims, appears detached and tormented as he watches a broadcast announcing the victims names on T.V., At it's height there were only 7 male members, including Manson, in the family. At the time of the murders there were a total of 4 male members, including Manson, and approximately 20 female members, yet the movie makes it appear that the family consisted of a bunch of guys with a few girls thrown in for good measure. In real life virtually all of the girls in the family were between the ages of 16 and 22. Yet, the actresses who played them in the movie are all in their mid to late twenties. Why? Aren't there teenage actresses in Hollywood who could have played these roles? The actress who plays Kitty Lutesinger, who was 16 at the time, looks like a clone of Nancy Sinatra circa '68. But the most ridiculous moment in the entire movie occurs when Sharon Tate, after having been stabbed 16 times in the chest with a 5 inch long knife manages to tell Susan Atkins; the best performer in the movie, to "Take the baby, cut the baby out" This is a total fabrication, it never occurred.

Helter Skelter 2004 really brought back all those events of August 1969. The new updated version made no attempt to out-do the 1976 television movie. Instead, it really showed more of the evil-persona of Charlie Manson and how he manipulated the members of his "family" to do his evil bidding.

Jeremy Davis was excellent as Manson. He had big shoes to fill over Steve Railsback's performance in 1976. Alison Smith's, Catherine Wadkins', and Margerite Moreau's performances really made my hair stand on end. The visuals of this film were well shown, right down to the reversed "negative" images when the killings were done. Who needs to see the actual blood and gore as there is to much of that detached violence portrayal.

You had to live in the era to really understand the impact of these disgusting crimes. The 1976 telefilm version was only seven years after the fact and it was frightening to watch back then. This new version was also frightening as it showed how an evil individual could have so much influence over certain people.

May Charlie Manson never get out of prison. If so, he could do this all again.

I was hoping this version of the Bugliosi/Gentry story of the Manson murders would not dissapoint and it didnt, it approached the very detailed book from more of the position of the Manson family and machinations. It also put a human face on those victimized and murdered by these sad seduced teenagers. Jeremey Davies gave an eerie performance as Charles Manson, he was an excellent choice but then he is always good in everything he does, Clea Duvall was great as Linda Kasabian, the girl who served as the star witness and one of the Manson Family members with a conscious.

The Story opens with the one murder not often discussed the murder of music teacher Gary Hinman in july 1969 in Topanga Canyon California not too far from the other murder sites. The 3hr movie ends with the trial beginning. This was just an excellent TV movie and I think it was good to remake this again since the original is not shown often and there is this bizarre following of Manson still to this day. Well maybe those misguided souls will learn someting even from this, I recommend reading the book too, one of the first pages has an rather ominious warning "The Book you are about to read will scare the hell out of you" It will its creepy and very good reading, this movie took some of the creepiness and translated it well to screen.

The is a quite good remake of the 1976 movie, but Jeremy Davies is not as believable in the main role as Steve Railsback was, and he fails in showing the viewer Manson's magnetic personality which made him able to manipulate people around him into conducting these horrible crimes.

To quote one of prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's lines in the film: "How do these kids end up stabbing people with knives and forks 169 times?" The film does not succeed in explaining this, and as such it is a failure.

Apart from that, it offers a different angle to what happened than the 1976 film, and shows more of the likely motivation Manson might have had for ordering the murders; the lack of progress in his musical career, and his connection to Beach Boy Dennis Wilson.

Oh man! What was CBS thinking? Were there no top level executives screening this thing beforehand? Not since Bob Odenkirk have I seen a Charlie Manson played for laughs. In 1976, there was made for TV movie called Helter Skelter and it starred Steve Railsback. It was one of the scariest and spookiest movies ever put on TV. When you saw Railsback on screen, you felt uncomfortable. His eyes, his look, his voice. The movie had a long lasting effect on anybody that saw it. Well, CBS felt they could do a re-telling of the story. However, it glossed over so many key issues from the book and the case, that you just have to scratch your head. This movie chose to focus on Charlie and the family leading up to the trial. However, the family looks more like extras from an Old Navy commercial. Charlie looks as intimidating as Michael Jackson, wait scratch that, he looks as intimidating as Janet Jackson. Since the actor does not have scary eyes, he tries to do this same rehearsed stare in every scene. It was, dare I say, almost funny. Look, I could trash this movie all night long, but I won't. The real tragedy is that they took a significant event from American History and rushed out a poor re-telling of it. Moreover, the edit is so bad, we do not get to see any of the trial. This was horribly flawed. Watch the original from 1976 or read Bugliosi's book if you want to know what happened and why, oh yeah, and if you want to be scared.